Microsoft Expert Witness Stumbles

parking_god writes "MIT prof Stuart Madnick, testifying on MS's behalf, was caught out twice when a government attorney asked him to name an OS (other than one made by Microsoft) where the browser couldn't be removed. Madnick also faltered on several other questions." Basically he doesn't understand what GNOME and KDE are, and since we're all holier-than-thou know-it-alls around here, we might as well laugh at Microsoft's expense ;)

Comments

Know-It-Alls

[colmore]

Basically he doesn't understand what GNOME and KDE are, and since we're all holier-than-thou know-it-alls around here, we might as well laugh at Microsoft's expense ;) Well given that this man is supposed to be an "expert witness" *some* knowledge of major competing OSes might be expected. The vast majority of Microsoft's business tactics are legal yet unsavory. I respect that. This is capitolism after all. What bothers me about Microsoft is their monolithic view of their role in computing. The honestly believe that without them, no innovation would have occured between 1985 and now, and so we should just let them walk over consumers and competitors out of gratefulness. I know it won't happen, but what I'd like to see come out of this trial would be a Microsoft not split up, shackled, or fined out of existance, but a Microsoft scared into respecting other's place in the industry. In all honesty they've done a better job than anyone else at creating a useable desktop OS good for a wide range of activities on a large variety of hardware. I'm not quite sure how they've been so successful in the server market, though. Advertising, I guess. And for my money, they still make a damn good mouse.

Madnick is not an MIT computer science professor

[Anonymous Coward]

He is an MIT Sloan School (business school, department 15, management) professor. Many of us from course 6 (EECS) are happy to disavow him.

Generally pathetic witnesses for Microsoft

[burgburgburg]

I've been submitting stories for awhile now (all rejected) on the ineffective witnesses that Microsoft has been using during this phase of the trial.

They've had several industry witnesses who were forced to admit that they'd never read the settlement or the states proposals. The economist who testified for Microsoft had to admit that all of his research in this area had been funded by Microsoft, the Autodesk exec who after defending Microsoft had to relate how screwed over he felt by them excluding Java from Windows XP (needed for some Autodesk software). The most fun was the former Microsoftie, now head of his own company, who testified that the states plan would lead to the "balkanization" of Windows. On cross, he admitted that the Microsoft lawyers wrote the first draft of his testimony, and that he hadn't even know what balkanization meant.

How much are these Microsoft lawyers getting if this is the level of their trial prep?

Business press doesn't see it that way

[sphealey]

I have been following the trial in the general business press as well as the IT trade press and of course the Linux-centric sites. Although the IT trade press is reporting that Microsoft's witnesses are doing a mixed job and are taking some significant hits in cross-examination, the general business press is taking the line that Microsoft's legal team has everything under control this time and is crushing the States.

My guess is that the judge's viewpoint is going to be closer to the general business press than the IT world (much less Slashdot), so I am not holding out much hope for a meaningful order here.

sPh